RCM Analysis Worksheet#

Guides a reliability engineer or maintenance team through a structured Reliability-Centered Maintenance analysis — from function identification through maintenance task selection — producing a DRAFT RCM worksheet ready for team facilitation review.

Flow#

Phase 1 — System and Context Definition#

Ask the user for:

1. Asset/equipment name, tag number, and plant/facility
2. System boundary and physical configuration (subsystems included)
3. Operating context: production rate, operating hours, environment, duty cycle
4. Criticality context: safety-critical? Production-critical? Environmental impact?
5. Existing maintenance strategy (if any) — for baseline comparison
6. Available FMEA or failure history data (optional)

Ask one block at a time. Wait for answers before proceeding.

Phase 2 — Function and Functional Failure Identification#

For each subsystem or component the user identifies:

1. Functions: List primary function(s) with performance standard
   • Format: "To [verb] [object] [performance standard] in [operating context]"
   • Example: "To circulate cooling water at ≥ 1,200 GPM and ≤ 15 PSIG pressure drop under normal production conditions"
2. Functional Failures: For each function, identify all ways the function can fail
   • Format: "Fails to [function verb] at all" OR "Fails to [function verb] to standard"
   • Each functional failure gets a letter designation (A, B, C…)

Confirm the function/failure list with the user before proceeding.

Phase 3 — Failure Mode and Effects Criticality Analysis (FMECA)#

For each functional failure, identify failure modes (specific causes):

#Failure ModeFailure CauseFailure Effect (local / system / plant)Failure Pattern (A–F)

Failure patterns (Nowlan & Heap):

• A: Bathtub (infant mortality + wear-out)
• B: Wear-out (increasing failure rate with age)
• C: Gradual wear (slowly increasing failure rate)
• D: Initial break-in then constant rate
• E: Random (constant failure rate, age-independent)
• F: Infant mortality (decreasing failure rate)

Then rate each failure mode:

• Severity: 1–10 (1 = negligible, 10 = safety/environmental catastrophe)
• Probability: 1–10 (1 = extremely unlikely, 10 = near-certain in operating life)
• Criticality (RPN): Severity × Probability

Flag: Failure modes with Severity ≥ 8 are HIGH PRIORITY regardless of RPN.

Phase 4 — Maintenance Significant Item (MSI) Classification#

For each failure mode, apply the MSI screen:

1. Safety/Environmental consequence? Is there a realistic chance this failure mode could injure or kill someone, or cause an environmental incident? → YES = Safety/Environmental MSI
2. Operational consequence? Does this failure mode directly affect operating capability, output rate, or customer delivery? → YES = Operational MSI
3. Hidden function? Is this a protective device whose failure would not be evident to the operating crew in normal circumstances? → YES = Hidden Function MSI (failure-finding task required)
4. Non-operational economic consequence only? Evaluate whether cost of prevention exceeds cost of failure.

Record MSI class for each failure mode.

Phase 5 — Decision Logic Tree (Maintenance Task Selection)#

For each MSI, walk the SAE JA1011 decision sequence:

Safety/Environmental MSIs:

• Can a proactive task reduce failure consequence to tolerable? → YES: select on-condition (preferred) or time-directed task. → NO: flag as REDESIGN REQUIRED.

Operational MSIs:

• Can a proactive task be cost-effective vs. operational loss? → YES: select on-condition or time-directed task. → NO: accept run-to-failure + corrective action plan.

Hidden Function MSIs:

• Assign a failure-finding task. Compute interval using: FFI = MTBF × (target availability fraction).
• State the MTBF assumption and note uncertainty if no failure history is available.

Task type selection priority (preferred order):

1. On-condition / predictive (vibration analysis, oil analysis, thermography, ultrasound, visual inspection)
2. Scheduled restoration (overhaul / refurbishment at interval)
3. Scheduled discard (replacement at interval)
4. Failure-finding (functional test for hidden failures)
5. Run-to-failure (only when consequence is acceptable and cost-justified)
6. Redesign (when no task can address a safety/environmental consequence)

Phase 6 — RCM Task List Assembly#

Produce a DRAFT maintenance task list:

ItemFailure ModeTask TypeTask DescriptionFrequency / IntervalTrade / SkillCMMS ActionJustification

Followed by:

• Redesign Flags table (items requiring engineering change, with reason)
• Information Gaps list (failure modes where MTBF/failure data is unknown; recommend data collection plan)
• Estimated workload change summary if a baseline strategy was provided

Close with a Reliability Engineer and Maintenance Manager Review Block:

DRAFT — NOT IMPLEMENTED. This RCM worksheet is for engineering and maintenance-management review only. All task types, intervals, and MSI classifications must be validated by the Reliability Engineer of Record before any change to the maintenance management system (CMMS). Safety-critical task changes require licensed engineer sign-off.

Key Rules#

• Never recommend implementing a change to a safety-critical maintenance task without flagging for licensed engineer review.
• Always record the rationale for each task selection decision in the justification column.
• Always flag failure modes with Severity ≥ 8 as HIGH PRIORITY regardless of RPN.
• Do not assign task intervals for safety-critical tasks without stating the underlying MTBF assumption and uncertainty.
• Ask one phase at a time; do not front-load all questions.
• If the user provides no failure history, state explicitly that FMECA severity/probability ratings are engineering estimates requiring validation.
• Do not access or modify any CMMS system.

Output Format#

• Phase outputs as labeled sections
• Function/Failure table (confirmed before proceeding)
• FMECA table with RPN and HIGH PRIORITY flags
• MSI classification table
• RCM task list table (copy-paste ready for CMMS import)
• Redesign flags table
• Information gaps list
• Reliability Engineer and Maintenance Manager Review Block

Feedback#

If the user expresses an unmet need or dissatisfaction with this skill, surface the contribution link:

This skill can be improved. Please share your feedback at https://github.com/archlab-space/Open-Skill-Hub/issues